Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [XTalk] The Little Apocalypse--Part I

Expand Messages
  • Bob Schacht
    ... The argument is yours. In your series on the Little Apocalypse, your arguments follow a predictable pattern: 1. The text says X 2. The Jesus Seminar
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 1, 2001
      At 07:45 AM 9/1/01 -0500, you wrote:

      >----- Original Message -----
      >From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
      >To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      >Cc: "Ted Weeden" <weedent@...>
      >Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 8:55 PM
      >Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Little Apocalypse--Part I
      >
      >
      > > >However, this passage does not regard the destruction of the temple. It
      > > >begins with Jesus leaving the temple: meaning that he was facing out to
      > > >the city of Jerusalem. Hence, in it, (1) the remark of the disciples,
      > > >"Teacher, see!--what wonderful stones and buildings!!!", and (2) the
      >reply
      > > >of Jesus, "See you these great buildings? Not at all shall be left one
      > > >stone upon stone which shall not be thrown down.", refer to the buildings
      > > >of Jerusalem Jesus was facing rather than to the temple complex out of
      >his
      > > >sight. Therefore, in Mark 13:1-2, Jesus predicts the total destruction of
      > > >Jerusalem rather than the destruction of the temple....
      > >
      > > Let us accept for the moment your interpretation that Jesus (and his
      > > audience) were facing Jerusalem rather than the Temple during this
      > > dialogue, and that Mark has intentionally framed the dialogue with that in
      > > mind. Are you then claiming that the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by 50
      > > C.E.? And on what basis would you make such a claim? Furthermore, the text
      > > does explicitly mention "great buildings" and "wonderful stones", so
      > > they're not exactly referring to residential districts of Jerusalem, but
      > > rather to some concentration of civic architecture near the Temple. What
      > > evidence do you have to date the destruction of these buildings this
      >early?
      > >
      > > Bob
      > >
      >Your line of reasoning appears to be this: If (1) Jesus and his disciples
      >were facing Jerusalem during their dialogue, then (2) Jerusalem was
      >destroyed by 50 CE. However, I don't see where (2) necessarily follows from
      >(1). Is there, perhaps, a missing premise to your argument?

      The argument is yours. In your series on the Little Apocalypse, your
      arguments follow a predictable pattern:
      1. The text says X
      2. The Jesus Seminar explains X with respect to the War of 66-70 C.E.
      3. But a better explanation for X can be found in the years immediately
      preceding 50 C.E.
      4. Therefore the text can be dated ca. 49 C.E.

      But in the case of these verses (Mark 13:1-2) you leave out steps 3 & 4;
      you only claim that the Jesus Seminar is wrong. You do not give us a better
      explanation. There are two alternatives:
      1. That Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (as you put it) was
      wrong and was never fulfilled; or
      2. That the prophecy refers to some event other than the destruction that
      occurred during the War of 66-70 C.E.

      According to the ABD, Titus destroyed not only the Temple in 70 C.E., but
      "most of Jerusalem." Specifically, he also destroyed the Antonia, Herod's
      huge fortress on the NW corner of the Temple Mount. So I think your
      argument is quite weak here. If vss. 1-2 do not refer to 70 C.E., what does
      it refer to?

      Besides, you are making quite a lot of Jesus' body posture on exit from the
      temple. But Jesus is not the first speaker-- instead, "one of his
      disciples" speaks first. If you want to make so much of body posture, this
      disciple could have turned around to face Jesus before speaking, thereby
      turning his face towards the Temple (or, perhaps, the Antonia.) So the
      framing of the dialogue depends not on what Jesus was looking at, but what
      this disciple was looking at. And I think your suggestion that the disciple
      as a simple Galilean would place residential construction in Jerusalem on
      the same par with the civic architecture of the Temple Mount, including the
      Antonia, seems ludicrous to me.

      So it seems here that your argument is rather weak, even though I would
      like to see your date of 49 C.E. for GMark confirmed.

      Bob




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • FMMCCOY
      ... From: Bob Schacht To: Cc: Ted Weeden Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 3, 2001
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        Cc: "Ted Weeden" <weedent@...>
        Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 12:44 AM
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Little Apocalypse--Part I


        > > > Bob
        > > >
        > >Your line of reasoning appears to be this: If (1) Jesus and his disciples
        > >were facing Jerusalem during their dialogue, then (2) Jerusalem was
        > >destroyed by 50 CE. However, I don't see where (2) necessarily follows
        from
        > >(1). Is there, perhaps, a missing premise to your argument?
        >
        > The argument is yours. In your series on the Little Apocalypse, your
        > arguments follow a predictable pattern:
        > 1. The text says X
        > 2. The Jesus Seminar explains X with respect to the War of 66-70 C.E.
        > 3. But a better explanation for X can be found in the years immediately
        > preceding 50 C.E.
        > 4. Therefore the text can be dated ca. 49 C.E.
        >
        > But in the case of these verses (Mark 13:1-2) you leave out steps 3 & 4;
        > you only claim that the Jesus Seminar is wrong. You do not give us a
        better
        > explanation. >

        Bob:

        As respects 13:1-2, where Jesus and his disciple are in dialogue, you
        initially state, "The (four step) argument is yours". However, you close by
        stating that, as respects my argument regarding 13:1-2, "you leave out steps
        3 & 4". Please make it clear, as respects 13:2, whether you think that I
        use the four step argument (which entails that I use steps 3 & 4) or whether
        you think that I do not use steps 3 & 4 (which entails that I do not use the
        four step argument), so that I know how to respond.


        > There are two alternatives:
        > 1. That Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem (as you put it)
        was
        > wrong and was never fulfilled; or
        > 2. That the prophecy refers to some event other than the destruction that
        > occurred during the War of 66-70 C.E.

        My position is that Jesus' prophecy of the total destruction of Jerusalem is
        an as yet unfulfilled prophecy which isn't necessarily wrong and which, if
        true, won't be fulfilled until the coming of the Son of Man.
        .


        > According to the ABD, Titus destroyed not only the Temple in 70 C.E., but
        > "most of Jerusalem." Specifically, he also destroyed the Antonia, Herod's
        > huge fortress on the NW corner of the Temple Mount. So I think your
        > argument is quite weak here. If vss. 1-2 do not refer to 70 C.E., what
        does
        > it refer to?
        >

        It refers to what will happen to Jerusalem when comes the Son of Man--see
        the discussion in Part IV.

        How can the prophecy that no stone will be left unturned refer to the events
        of 70 CE? The destruction of *most* of Jerusalem means that, while most of
        the stones of the city were overturned by the Romans, a lot of them were
        left unturned. One can't even say that the temple complex was completely
        destroyed with no stone left unturned for one part of the temple complex,
        i.e., the wailing wall, is still in existence with its stones unturned.

        > Besides, you are making quite a lot of Jesus' body posture on exit from
        the
        > temple. But Jesus is not the first speaker-- instead, "one of his
        > disciples" speaks first. If you want to make so much of body posture, this
        > disciple could have turned around to face Jesus before speaking, thereby
        > turning his face towards the Temple (or, perhaps, the Antonia.) So the
        > framing of the dialogue depends not on what Jesus was looking at, but what
        > this disciple was looking at.

        If one wants to engage in speculation as to the body posture of the
        disciple, then perhaps he was walking beside Jesus, and holding up one of
        his arms and pointing, with his index finger, towards the city when he made
        his statement.

        The bottom line, though, is this: The disciple's remark begins with
        "Teacher, see what..." and, without any clarification from Mark, the most
        natural interpretation is that the disciple is referring to what Jesus is
        seeing as he leaves the temple and faces outward to the city of Jerusalem.

        >And I think your suggestion that the
        disciple
        > as a simple Galilean would place residential construction in Jerusalem on
        > the same par with the civic architecture of the Temple Mount, including
        the
        > Antonia, seems ludicrous to me.
        >
        > So it seems here that your argument is rather weak, even though I would
        > like to see your date of 49 C.E. for GMark confirmed.
        >
        This is a mis-representation of my position. To set the
        record straight, my position is that Jesus and the disciple, as rustic
        rubes, would have deemed the buildings of the Herodian castle-complex and
        the mansions of the high priestly aristocracy to be great buildings. They
        also would have deemed the buildings of the temple complex to be great
        buildings. It does not necessarily follow from this, nor do I mean to imply
        this, that they would have found the great residential buildings to be just
        as great as the great buildings of the temple complex. Indeed, this is
        patently false since the temple was the greatest building in Jerusalem. If
        Jesus had said, "See you the greatest building in Jerusalem?", then it would
        be clear that he had been referring to the temple. However, what he
        actually said is, "See you these great buildings?" As he states this while
        going forth out of the temple and, so, is apparently facing the city, I
        think it most likely that he is referring to the great residences in the
        city.

        I deeply appreciate your taking the time to respond to my posts
        and I hope that you and some of the
        other XTalk listers will ask some further questions and/or make some
        further criticisms on the intepretation of the Little Apocalypse I have
        suggested in the six posts. The implications of the hypothesis that Mark
        wrote his gospel c. 49 CE are revolutionary in nature, so I think it
        warrants further discussion.


        Frank McCoy
        1809 N. English Apt. 17
        Maplewood, MN USA 55109
      • Jim Bacon
        ... Frank, How do you account for early Christian tradition (Papias as quoted by Eusebius) that Mark based his gospel on the teachings of Peter? Conventional
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 4, 2001
          Frank McCoy said:
          >
          > I deeply appreciate your taking the time to respond to my posts
          > and I hope that you and some of the
          > other XTalk listers will ask some further questions and/or make some
          > further criticisms on the intepretation of the Little Apocalypse I have
          > suggested in the six posts. The implications of the hypothesis that Mark
          > wrote his gospel c. 49 CE are revolutionary in nature, so I think it
          > warrants further discussion.
          >
          >
          Frank,

          How do you account for early Christian tradition (Papias as quoted by
          Eusebius) that Mark based his gospel on the teachings of Peter? Conventional
          scholarship place Mark and Peter together in Rome in the 60s C.E.

          Jim Bacon
        • mgrondin@tir.com
          ... This is a test, right? To see if anyone was paying attention? Good one, Frank! I love the juxtaposition of scholarly caution ( if true ) with patently
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 4, 2001
            --- Frank McCoy wrote:
            > My position is that Jesus' prophecy of the total destruction of
            > Jerusalem is an as yet unfulfilled prophecy which isn't necessarily
            > wrong and which, if true, won't be fulfilled until the coming of
            > the Son of Man.

            This is a test, right? To see if anyone was paying attention?
            Good one, Frank! I love the juxtaposition of scholarly caution
            ("if true") with patently absurd religious doctrine! Well done! LOL

            Mike
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.